Retrieve all files attached to a task, including their IDs, names, and sizes. Provide project and task IDs to get the list.
List the files attached to a task, with their ids, names and sizes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task id. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project the task belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does state what the operation returns (metadata only, not file contents). The read-only nature is implicit from 'List', and it does not hide mutation or side effects; only minor details like pagination or permission requirements are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and output fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple metadata-list tool, this is complete: the input schema covers parameters, and the description covers the absence of an output schema by naming the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the relationship between project and task. The description adds little beyond restating that the files are attached to a task, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (files attached to a task), and it names the returned fields (ids, names, sizes). This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspace_files and get_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly implies the intended use case: retrieving the attachment metadata for a particular task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.